Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

The Identification and Measurement of ‘Oppressive’ Police Interviewing Tactics 107
record of what had taken place in the confines of the police interview room.
Miller, and his two co-accused Paris and Abdullahi, had been found guilty of
the particularly gruesome murder of a prostitute in the dock area of Cardiff,
in South Wales. There had been two Crown Court trials and the case went to
appeal. The final judgment was delivered by the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord
Taylor. A short example of what their Lordships thought of the officers’ tactics
is very revealing.
The officers . . . were not questioning him so much as shouting at him what they
wanted him to say. Short of physical violence, it is hard to conceive of a more hostile
and intimidating approach by officers to a suspect. It is impossible to convey on
the printed page the pace, force and menace of the officer’s delivery (R. v. Paris,
Abdullahi and Miller (1993) 97 Cr.App.R. 99, p. 103).
In some respects, the analysis and graphic presentation afforded by the PIAF
represents our attempt ‘to convey on the printed page the pace, force and menace
of the officers’ delivery’. The 19 tapes of interview in this case were spread
over five days and lasted a total of 12 hours and 42 minutes. It was the longest
interview process in the sample. The factor analysis produced five tactic factors
and four response factors.
The primary factor for the officers’ tactics is best described as a Mr Nasty
factor. This contained the tactics challenging the suspect’s version of events as a
lie or not believable, appealing to him to tell the truth, raised voices, the overarching
tactic, continual dispute, the use of threats, the manipulative use of significant
others and maximizing the suspect’s anxiety. Factor 2 has been described as
a Mr Nice factor. In this factor the tactics used included low tone, reassurance,
multiple assertions and implying evidence. Factor 3 is a manipulation factor
containing experienced officers, manipulating detail, minimizing responsibility
for the offence and challenging the suspect with witness information.
Factor 4 is as a poor delivery factor. It contained the use of multiple questions,
multiple assertions and echoing. The final factor we have called persistent
pressure. Its component parts were multiple officers, maximization of the
serious nature of the offence, use of inducements and not employing leading
questions.
In relation to the response factors, the leading factor is that of angry denial,
with very high statistical loading for the use of a raised voice, angry and/or
suspicious, challenging accounts or events and denial. The second fact has been
titled seeks information. This contained asks for the question to be repeated,
seeks information and admission. Factor 3 has been described as a provide
account factor and includes providing an account, agrees with or accepts what
the officer is asking and a negative correlation for distress. The final response
factor was accept scenario. This included accepting a theme, not remembering,
introducing a qualification and signs of distress.
Given the scale and dimension of this case it will not be possible to reproduce
the full interview sequence. We shall limit the examination to what their
Lordships referred to as the ‘hostile and intimidating approach . . . ’ adopted by
the officers in tape 7 and the responses it elicited.